Search Results

Search found 31207 results on 1249 pages for 'atg best practice in industries'.

Page 102/1249 | < Previous Page | 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109  | Next Page >

• php form submit and the resend infromation screen

  - by Para

  Hello, I want to ask a best practice question. Suppose I have a form in php with 3 fields say name, email and comment. I submit the form via POST. In PHP I try and insert the date into the database. Suppose the insertion fails. I should now show the user an error and display the form filled in with the data he previously inserted so he can correct his error. Showing the form in it's initial state won't do. So I display the form and the 3 fields are now filled in from PHP with echo or such. Now if I click refresh I get a message saying "Are you sure you want to resend information?". OK. Suppose after I insert the data I don't carry on but I redirect to the same page but with the necessary parameters in the query string. This makes the message go away but I have to carry 3 parameters in the query string. So my question is: How is it better to do this? I want to not carry around lots of parameters in the query string but also not get that error. How can this be done? Should I use cookies to store the form information.

  Read the article

• Program structure in long running data processing python script

  - by fmark

  For my current job I am writing some long-running (think hours to days) scripts that do CPU intensive data-processing. The program flow is very simple - it proceeds into the main loop, completes the main loop, saves output and terminates: The basic structure of my programs tends to be like so: <import statements> <constant declarations> <misc function declarations> def main(): for blah in blahs(): <lots of local variables> <lots of tightly coupled computation> for something in somethings(): <lots more local variables> <lots more computation> <etc., etc.> <save results> if __name__ == "__main__": main() This gets unmanageable quickly, so I want to refactor it into something more manageable. I want to make this more maintainable, without sacrificing execution speed. Each chuck of code relies on a large number of variables however, so refactoring parts of the computation out to functions would make parameters list grow out of hand very quickly. Should I put this sort of code into a python class, and change the local variables into class variables? It doesn't make a great deal of sense tp me conceptually to turn the program into a class, as the class would never be reused, and only one instance would ever be created per instance. What is the best practice structure for this kind of program? I am using python but the question is relatively language-agnostic, assuming a modern object-oriented language features.

  Read the article

• Code promotion: Enforcing the rules

  - by jbarker7

  So here is our problem: We have a small team of developers with their own ways of doing things-- I am trying to formalize a process in which we are required to promote our code in the following order: Local sandbox Dev UAT Staging Live Developers develop/test as they go on their own sandbox, Dev is its own box that we would use for continuous integration, UAT is another site in IIS on the dev box, which uses our dev database. We then promote to staging, which is a site in IIS on the Live box and using live data (just like the live, hence staging). Then, finally, we promote to live. Here are a few of my questions: 1.) Does this seem to be best practice? If not, what needs to be done differently? 2.) How do I enforce the rules to the developers? Often developers skip steps in order to save time... this should not be tolerated and would be great if it could be physically enforced. 3.) How do I enforce these rules to the business group? The business group just wants to get features out FAST. Do we promote only on certain days? Thanks! Josh

  Read the article

• What are the principles of developing web-applications with action-based java frameworks?

  - by Roman

  Background I'm going to develop a new web-application with java. It's not very big or very complex and I have enough time until it'll "officially" start. I have some JSF/Facelets development background (about half a year). And I also have some expirience with JSP+JSTL. In self-educational purpose (and also in order to find the best solution) I want to prototype the new project with one of action-based frameworks. Actually, I will choose between Spring MVC and Stripes. Problem In order to get correct impression about action-based frameworks (in comparison with JSF) I want to be sure that I use them correctly (in bigger or lesser extent). So, here I list some most-frequent tasks (at least for me) and describe how I solve them with JSF. I want to know how they should be solved with action-based framework (or separately with Spring MVC and Stripes if there is any difference for concrete task). Rendering content: I can apply ready-to-use component from standard jsf libraries (core and html) or from 3rd-party libs (like RichFaces). I can combine simple components and I can easily create my own components which are based on standard components. Rendering data (primitive or reference types) in the correct format: Each component allow to specify a converter for transforming data in both ways (to render and to send to the server). Converter is, as usual, a simple class with 2 small methods. Site navigation: I specify a set of navigation-cases in faces-config.xml. Then I specify action-attribute of a link (or a button) which should match one or more of navigation cases. The best match is choosen by JSF. Implementing flow (multiform wizards for example): I'm using JSF 1.2 so I use Apache Orchestra for the flow (conversation) scope. Form processing: I have a pretty standard java-bean (backing bean in JSF terms) with some scope. I 'map' form fields on this bean properties. If everything goes well (no exceptions and validation is passed) then all these properties are set with values from the form fields. Then I can call one method (specified in button's action attribute) to execute some logic and return string which should much one of my navigation cases to go to the next screen. Forms validation: I can create custom validator (or choose from existing) and add it to almost each component. 3rd-party libraries have sets of custom ajax-validators. Standard validators work only after page is submitted. Actually, I don't like how validation in JSF works. Too much magic there. Many standard components (or maybe all of them) have predefined validation and it's impossible to disable it (Maybe not always, but I met many problems with it). Ajax support: many 3rd-party libraries (MyFaces, IceFaces, OpenFaces, AnotherPrefixFaces...) have strong ajax support and it works pretty well. Until you meet a problem. Too much magic there as well. It's very difficult to make it work if it doesn't work but you've done right as it's described in the manual. User-friendly URLs: people say that there are some libraries for that exist. And it can be done with filters as well. But I've never tried. It seems too complex for the first look. Thanks in advance for explaning how these items (or some of them) can be done with action-based framework.

  Read the article

• Haskel dot (.) and dollar ($) composition: correct use.

  - by Robert Massaioli

  I have been reading Real World Haskell and I am nearing the end but a matter of style has been niggling at me to do with the (.) and ($) operators. When you write a function that is a composition of other functions you write it like: f = g . h But when you apply something to the end of those functions I write it like this: k = a $ b $ c $ value But the book would write it like this: k = a . b . c $ value Now to me they look functionally equivalent, they do the exact same thing in my eyes. However, the more I look, the more I see people writing their functions in the manner that the book does: compose with (.) first and then only at the end use ($) to append a value to evaluate the lot (nobody does it with many dollar compositions). Is there a reason for using the books way that is much better than using all ($) symbols? Or is there some best practice here that I am not getting? Or is it superfluous and I shouldn't be worrying about it at all? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Why is short project lifetime and other situation-specific reasons used to excuse crappy code? [clos

  - by sharptooth

  Every now and then (including on SO) people say things implying that "if the project is short lived you can leave obvious defects there" or "that memory leak only accounts for 100 bytes per whole program lifetime and could be left". Now in my practice I always reuse company-owned code to the greatest extent I can. Like if I need something and I can find it in the company codebase I take it from there and reuse or adapt. This means that any crappy code will be reused as well and I might notice or not notice defects therein. So the defect in some "test we only need for a month" can slip into a proram we ship to customers. And a leak that "only accounted for 100 bytes per lifetime" now could account for 100 bytes 10 times per second in a server application intended to run for months. That's why I don't understand why excuses like that are offered. Is our compamy the only one having a source control? Or are we the only company that requires writing human-readable code? Could anyone shed a light on why people seriously offer such excuses?

  Read the article

• Should a developer write their own test plan for Q/A?

  - by Mat Nadrofsky

  Who writes the test plans in your shop? Who should write them? I realize developers (like me) regularly do their own unit testing whilst developing and in some cases even their own Q/A depending on the size of the shop and the nature of the business, but in a big software shop with a full development team and Q/A team, who should be writing those official "my changes are done now" test plans? Soon, we'll be bringing on another Q/A member to our development team. My question is, going forward, is it a good practice to get your developers to write their own test plans? Something tells me that part of that might make sense but another part might not... What I like about that: Developer is very familiar with the changes made, thus it's easy to produce a document... What I don't like about that: Developer knows how it's supposed to work and might write a test plan that caters to this without knowing it. So, with the above in mind, what is the general stance on this topic? I'm of course already reading books like the Mythical Man-Month, Code Complete and a few others which really do help, but I'd like to get some input from the group as well.

  Read the article

• Using different numeric variable types

  - by DataPimp

  Im still pretty new so bear with me on this one, my question(s) are not meant to be argumentative or petty but during some reading something struck me as odd. Im under the assumption that when computers were slow and memory was expensive using the correct variable type was much more of a necessity than it is today. Now that memory is a bit easier to come by people seem to have relaxed a bit. For example, you see this sample code everywhere: for (int i = 0; i < length; i++) int? (-2,147,483,648 to 2,147,483,648) for length? Isnt byte (0-255) a better choice? So Im curious of your opinion and what you believe to be best practice, I hate to think this would be used only because the acronym "int" is more intuitive for a beginner...or has memory just become so cheap that we really dont need to concern ourselves with such petty things and therefore we should just use long so we can be sure any other numbers/types(within reason) used can be cast automagically? ...or am Im just being silly by concerning myself with such things?

  Read the article

• Haskell function composition (.) and function application ($) idioms: correct use.

  - by Robert Massaioli

  I have been reading Real World Haskell and I am nearing the end but a matter of style has been niggling at me to do with the (.) and ($) operators. When you write a function that is a composition of other functions you write it like: f = g . h But when you apply something to the end of those functions I write it like this: k = a $ b $ c $ value But the book would write it like this: k = a . b . c $ value Now to me they look functionally equivalent, they do the exact same thing in my eyes. However, the more I look, the more I see people writing their functions in the manner that the book does: compose with (.) first and then only at the end use ($) to append a value to evaluate the lot (nobody does it with many dollar compositions). Is there a reason for using the books way that is much better than using all ($) symbols? Or is there some best practice here that I am not getting? Or is it superfluous and I shouldn't be worrying about it at all? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Should frontend and backend be handled by different controllers?

  - by DR

  In my previous learning projects I always used a single controller, but now I wonder if that is good practice or even always possible. In all RESTful Rails tutorials the controllers have a show, an edit and an index view. If an authorized user is logged on, the edit view becomes available and the index view shows additional data manipulation controls, like a delete button or a link to the edit view. Now I have a Rails application which falls exactly into this pattern, but the index view is not reusable: The normal user sees a flashy index page with lots of pictures, complex layout, no Javascript requirement, ... The Admin user index has a completly different minimalistic design, jQuery table and lots of additional data, ... Now I'm not sure how to handle this case. I can think of the following: Single controller, single view: The view is split into two large blocks/partials using an if statement. Single controller, two views: index and index_admin. Two different controllers: BookController and BookAdminController None of these solutions seems perfect, but for now I'm inclined to use the 3rd option. What's the preferred way to do this?

  Read the article

• White-box testing in Javascript - how to deal with privacy?

  - by Max Shawabkeh

  I'm writing unit tests for a module in a small Javascript application. In order to keep the interface clean, some of the implementation details are closed over by an anonymous function (the usual JS pattern for privacy). However, while testing I need to access/mock/verify the private parts. Most of the tests I've written previously have been in Python, where there are no real private variables (members, identifiers, whatever you want to call them). One simply suggests privacy via a leading underscore for the users, and freely ignores it while testing the code. In statically typed OO languages I suppose one could make private members accessible to tests by converting them to be protected and subclassing the object to be tested. In Javascript, the latter doesn't apply, while the former seems like bad practice. I could always wall back to black box testing and simply check the final results. It's the simplest and cleanest approach, but unfortunately not really detailed enough for my needs. So, is there a standard way of keeping variables private while still retaining some backdoors for testing in Javascript?

  Read the article

• Use of Java [Interfaces / Abstract classes]

  - by Samuel

  Hello, Lately i decided to take a look at Java so i am still pretty new to it and also to the approach of OO programming, so i wanted to get some things straight before learning more, (i guess it's never to soon to start with good practices). I am programming a little 2D game for now but i think my question applies to any non trivial project. For the simplicity i'll provide examples from my game. I have different kinds of zombies, but they all have the same attributes (x, y, health, attack etc) so i wrote an interface Zombie which i implement by WalkingZombie, RunningZombie TeleportingZombie etc. Is this the best thing to do? Am i better of with an abstract class? Or with a super class? (I am not planning to partially implement functions - therefor my choice for an interface instead of an abstract class) I have one class describing the main character (Survivor) and since it is pretty big i wanted to write an interface with the different functions, so that i can easily see and share the structure of it. Is it good practice? Or is it simply a waste of space and time? I hope this question will not be rated as subjective because i thought that experienced programmers won't disagree about this kind of topic since the use of interfaces / super classes / abstract classes follows logical rules and is thereby not simply a personal choice. Thank you for your time -Samuel

  Read the article

• Why do I need to give my options a value attribute in my dropdown? JQuery related.

  - by Alex

  So far in my web developing experiences, I've noticed that almost all web developers/designers choose to give their options in a select a value like so: <select name="foo"> <option value="bar">BarCheese</option> // etc. // etc. </select> Is this because it is best practice to do so? I ask this because I have done a lot of work with jQuery and dropdown's lately, and sometimes I get really annoyed when I have to check something like: $('select[name=foo]').val() == "bar"); To me, many times that seems less clear than just being able to check the val() against BarCheese. So why is it that most web developers/designers specify a value paramater instead of just letting the options actual value be its value? And yes, if the option has a value attribute I know I can do something like this: $('select[name=foo] option:contains("BarCheese")').attr('selected', 'selected'); But I would still really like to know why this is done. Thanks!!

  Read the article

• Is there a case for parameterising using Abstract classes rather than Interfaces?

  - by Chris

  I'm currently developing a component based API that is heavily stateful. The top level components implement around a dozen interfaces each. The stock top-level components therefore sit ontop of a stack of Abstract implementations which in turn contain multiple mixin implementations and implement multiple mixin interfaces. So far, so good (I hope). The problem is that the base functionality is extremely complex to implement (1,000s of lines in 5 layers of base classes) and therefore I do not wish for component writers to implement the interfaces themselves but rather to extend my base classes (where all the boiler plate code is already written). If the API therefore accepts interfaces rather than references to the Abstract implementation that I wish for component writers to extends, then I have a risk that the implementer will not perform the validation that is both required and assumed by other areas of code. Therefore, my question is, is it sometimes valid to paramerise API methods using an abstract implementation reference rather than a reference to the interface(s) that it implements? Do you have an example of a well-designed API that uses this technique or am I trying to talk myself into bad-practice?

  Read the article

• Is it better for class data to be passed internally or accessed directly?

  - by AaronSzy

  Example: // access fields directly private void doThis() { return doSomeWork(this.data); } // receive data as an argument private void doThis(data) { return doSomeWork(data); } The first option is coupled to the value in this.data while the second option avoids this coupling. I feel like the second option is always better. It promotes loose coupling WITHIN the class. Accessing global class data willy-nilly throughout just seems like a bad idea. Obviously this class data needs to be accessed directly at some point. However, if accesses, to this global class data can be eliminated by parameter passing, it seems that this is always preferable. The second example has the advantage of working with any data of the proper type, whereas the first is bound to working with the just class data. Even if you don't NEED the additional flexibility, it seems nice to leave it as an option. I just don't see any advantage in accessing member data directly from private methods as in the first example. Whats the best practice here? I've referenced code complete, but was not able to find anything on this particular issue.

  Read the article

• Sys. engineer has decided to dynamically transform all XSLs into DLLs on website build process. DLL

  - by John Sullivan

  Hello, OS: Win XP. Here is my situation. I have a browser based application. It is "wrapped" in a Visual Basic application. Our "Systems Engineer Senior" has decided to spawn DLL files from all of our XSL pages (many of which have duplicate names) upon building a new instance of the website and have the active server pages (ASPX) use the DLL instead. This has created a "known issue" in which ~200 DLL naming conflicts occur and, thus, half of our application is broken. I think a solution to this problem is that, thankfully, we're generating the names of the DLLs and linking them up with our application dynamically. Therefore we can do something kludgy like generate a hash and append it to the end of the DLL file name when we build our website, then always reference the DLL that had some kind of random string / hash appended to its name. Aside from outright renaming the DLLs, is there another way to have multiple DLLs with the same name register for one application? I think the answer is "No, only between different applications using a special technique." Please confirm. Another question I have on my mind is whether this whole idea is a good practice -- converting our XSL pages (which we use in mass -- every time a response from our web app occurs) into DLL functions that call a "function" to do what the XSL page did via an active server page (ASPX), when we were before just sending an XML response to an XSL page via aspx.

  Read the article

• STLifying C++ classes

  - by shambulator

  I'm trying to write a class which contains several std::vectors as data members, and provides a subset of vector's interface to access them: class Mesh { public: private: std::vector<Vector3> positions; std::vector<Vector3> normals; // Several other members along the same lines }; The main thing you can do with a mesh is add positions, normals and other stuff to it. In order to allow an STL-like way of accessing a Mesh (add from arrays, other containers, etc.), I'm toying with the idea of adding methods like this: public: template<class InIter> void AddNormals(InIter first, InIter last); Problem is, from what I understand of templates, these methods will have to be defined in the header file (seems to make sense; without a concrete iterator type, the compiler doesn't know how to generate object code for the obvious implementation of this method). Is this actually a problem? My gut reaction is not to go around sticking huge chunks of code in header files, but my C++ is a little rusty with not much STL experience outside toy examples, and I'm not sure what "acceptable" C++ coding practice is on this. Is there a better way to expose this functionality while retaining an STL-like generic programming flavour? One way would be something like this: (end list) class RestrictedVector<T> { public: RestrictedVector(std::vector<T> wrapped) : wrapped(wrapped) {} template <class InIter> void Add(InIter first, InIter last) { std::copy(first, last, std::back_insert_iterator(wrapped)); } private: std::vector<T> wrapped; }; and then expose instances of these on Mesh instead, but that's starting to reek a little of overengineering :P Any advice is greatly appreciated!

  Read the article

• Should programmers use boolean variables to "document" their code?

  - by froadie

  I'm reading McConell's Code Complete, and he discusses using boolean variables to document your code. For example, instead of: if((elementIndex < 0) || (MAX_ELEMENTS < elementIndex) || (elementIndex == lastElementIndex)){ ... } He suggests: finished = ((elementIndex < 0) || (MAX_ELEMENTS < elementIndex)); repeatedEntry = (elementIndex == lastElementIndex); if(finished || repeatedEntry){ ... } This strikes me as logical, good practice, and very self-documenting. However, I'm hesitant to start using this technique regularly as I've almost never come across it; and perhaps it would be confusing just by virtue of being rare. However, my experience is not very vast yet, so I'm interested in hearing programmers' opinion of this technique, and I'd be curious to know if anyone uses this technique regularly or has seen it often when reading code. Is this a worthwhile convention/style/technique to adopt? Will other programmers understand and appreciate it, or consider it strange?

  Read the article

• What’s the best way to label cables in a data center

  - by Ben

  We're in the midst of planning for a big data center renovation at my office, which is going to result in a completely new power and network infrastructure. As part of this, I'd like to label all of our cables properly and sanely. What are your best practices, both for labeling patch panels, cables, power whips, anything and everything in a data center that you'd label?

  Read the article

• which web performance monitoring service is best?

  - by colinguo

  which web performance monitoring service is best? internetvista.com? watchmouse.com?

  Read the article

• Best City in Australia for Dedicated Hosting [closed]

  - by Brian Stinson

  We are looking to duplicate a copy of our database and application servers to serve our customers in Australia. We are looking for a well connected datacenter providing dedicated hosting (full machine rental) to take database updates and the like from our main site in Boston, MA. Which general location/city in Australia is best connected? East Coast? West Coast? If you have individual datacenter recommendations those are helpful as well.

  Read the article

• What is the best free font converter?

  - by Stefan

  What is the best free font converter? Online or not doesn't mather. Please motivate your choice. One tip per post please.

  Read the article

• Which are the best tools for Graphic Designing?

  - by Jen

  Hello, I want to take up Graphic Designing as my profession. I would be designing Logos, Icons, Stationery, Brochures, Handouts, Book Covers, etc. But I am thoroughly confused as to which tools are the best and which books/resources will help me learn these tools and graphic designing like a professional. I am ready to shell out money to purchase the resources. Please help me out! Thanks, Jen

  Read the article

• Which are the best tools for Graphic Designing?

  - by Jen

  Hello, I want to take up Graphic Designing as my profession. I would be designing Logos, Icons, Stationery, Brochures, Handouts, Book Covers, etc. But I am thoroughly confused as to which tools are the best and which books/resources will help me learn these tools and graphic designing like a professional. I am ready to shell out money to purchase the resources. Please help me out! Thanks, Jen

  Read the article

• What's the best way to move c:\users to d:\users under vista/W7

  - by Scott

  I just installed Windows 7 RC1 and want to move c:\users to d:\users. What's the best way to do this? Due to the fact that Windows 7 creates a reserved partition that is mounted as C: in the recovery console, I had to use the following commands robocopy /mir /xj D:\Users E:\Users mklink D:\Users D:\Users /j Both D's in the mklink command are correct. When the system reboots, the drive that was D in the recovery console becomes the C drive.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109  | Next Page >